Gollumpus Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 He might have scored the first goal in games 3,4,6 or 7. He could easily have done nothing too. We weren't as good as we could have been going into the finals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 No, not really. I dislike Mike Gillis intensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I'm not sure you understand what "20/20 hindsight" means. Let's say after year 1 of the trade I jump on board and say "hey, what a terrible trade, we gave away a first and one of the top 10 goal scorers in the league for a guy that's a healthy scratch!". That would be using hindsight. When I say the day after the trade how bad it was....... that's called being right, aka assessing the players involved correctly. You weren't able to do that, neither was Gillis, so you need endless paragraphs of nonsense. My position hasn't changed, not a single bit of it. How can that be hindsight? If anything it was foresight, predicting accurately how the trade would play out. Again, exactly as I said it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 He might have scored the first goal in games 3,4,6 or 7. He could easily have done nothing too. We weren't as good as we could have been going into the finals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 You have to wonder how Florida and Vancouver gave up on what turned out to be a rookie 34 goal scorer so easily. How does one give up on such a talent when Raymond has been a Canuck in perpetuity? Maybe the .org felt 20 games and his 11 points were a big enough canvas to draw out their decision of Grabner's career potential. He certainly never received sufficient time as a Canuck to show his stuff. Trading a first rounder and a rookie of the year top 3 for an injured d man and Oreo that went nowhere. Love Ballard .If he was healthy when they traded for him I could have seen the sense in it but ..... Grabner scored 26 goals and 41 points in 44 games from January to April 2011. He finished with a rookie-high 34 goals, which earned him third place in the Calder Trophy voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 You have to wonder how Florida and Vancouver gave up on what turned out to be a rookie 34 goal scorer so easily. How does one give up on such a talent when Raymond has been a Canuck in perpetuity? Maybe the .org felt 20 games and his 11 points were a big enough canvas to draw out their decision of Grabner's career potential. He certainly never received sufficient time as a Canuck to show his stuff. Trading a first rounder and a rookie of the year top 3 for an injured d man and Oreo that went nowhere. Love Ballard .If he was healthy when they traded for him I could have seen the sense in it but ..... Grabner scored 26 goals and 41 points in 44 games from January to April 2011. He finished with a rookie-high 34 goals, which earned him third place in the Calder Trophy voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think the team could use some goal scorers that do not have the names Sedin or Burrows. It is not like there is second and third lines full of them on this team. Grabner was given 20 games as a Canuck. There was zero foresight so there is zero hindsight. The Canucks organisation gave up on two first rounders for an injured d man and a throw in that was thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think the team could use some goal scorers that do not have the names Sedin or Burrows. It is not like there is second and third lines full of them on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 We'll see if he comes to camp in shape... regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredatwork Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, and more HINDSIGHT. Who "gave up" on him? He wasn't the best option and he was waiver eligible. We traded him for "something" rather than losing him for "nothing". I've said it over and over and over and over yet again. It's not like nobody knew he had talent. But no GM is going to move a top 6 forward coming off a career year to gift a prospect that can't be bothered to show to camp in game shape a roster spot. He only had FOUR YEARS to get his act together and still couldn't be bother to show up in shape. He pissed away a golden opportunity In Florida. A team starving for offense and he again couldn't be bothered to show up in game shape to compete for a spot. He was outplayed for a roster spot by another prospect. Honestly I'm glad his lazy arse is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshinefe Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 You do realize that every other gm gets evaluated on hindsight, right? You do realize that nobody acknowledges your waiver eligible argument because it's foolish, right? It's total nonsense, I do understand in your head it's very real, but on this site it might be most desperate, grasping at straws, emotional argument here. Sure you can grab another guy or two who are just as upset as you are on how the trade worked out to jump on board but anybody remotely object recognizes how foolish you are being. You were just wrong, that's it. Man up, admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnieds Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Guess I'll throw my 2 cents in. OK let me start off by saying I haven't read the first 5 pages. I've only read this last page so I apologize if what I said has already been covered. Ok with that out of the way. Do I feel bad for Gillis? HELL NO! Out of all the moves he's made, only 3 of them I like. Getting Ehrhoff from SJ which is probably more about SJ wanting to dump salary than the genius of Gillis but whatever, I'll give him that one. Bringing in Higgins and Lapierre I see are good moves. He hasn't drafted well except for Hodgson which he turned into Kassian. All the others haven't played a NHL game yet. The move that bugs me most bout Mr. Gillis is giving Luongo a 12 year contract. Why do I think it's a bad contract? In the history of the NHL, only ONE goalie has gotten a longer term deal than Luongo and that would be the great Rick Dipietro. So it's either Gillis is a genius or the other 28 GMs are idiots. Guess which one I'm gonna pick? Arguably the greatest goalie who ever lived, Martin Brodeur just finished off a 6 year deal. If Lou Lamerello can convince Brodeur to a 6 year deal, why can't Gillis convince Luongo to take a shorter term? Another example, Jonathan Quick, coming off a Stanley Cup victory agrees to a 10 year deal and he's only 26, 5 years younger than when Luongo signed his 12 year deal. Why can Lombardi convince him to take a shorter term deal and Gillis can't? Now I know what you're all gonna say, Gillis did it to lower the cap hit. True. But it's more of a cover up to save cap room for all the other boneheaded moves he's made like getting Keith Ballard. So tell me, how can every other GM except NYI sign their goalies to under a 7 or 8 year deal and still manage to ice a competitive team? But not us? Instead of negotiating with Luongo like a good GM is suppose to do, Gillis took the easy way out and offered him a 12 year deal. Why? He didn't deserve it, Canucks just came off a series lost to Chicago in which he was pretty bad. If Lou demanded that contract, then I say trade him or let him walk. Afterall, you work for me, not the other way around. Every GM is hired to be fired, Gillis knows he would've been long fired by the time Luongo's deal was to expire. So he doesen't care what happens in 12 years. Like I said on another thread, a good GM will build a winning team by spending to the max, it takes a GREAT GM to build a winning team and still have cap space left over. Gillis is not a great GM. Flame away CDC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Such a devasting counter-argument. I will respond with more "nonsense". You do realize that every other gm gets evaluated on hindsight, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Guess I'll throw my 2 cents in. OK let me start off by saying I haven't read the first 5 pages. I've only read this last page so I apologize if what I said has already been covered. Ok with that out of the way. Do I feel bad for Gillis? HELL NO! Out of all the moves he's made, only 3 of them I like. Getting Ehrhoff from SJ which is probably more about SJ wanting to dump salary than the genius of Gillis but whatever, I'll give him that one. Bringing in Higgins and Lapierre I see are good moves. He hasn't drafted well except for Hodgson which he turned into Kassian. All the others haven't played a NHL game yet. The move that bugs me most bout Mr. Gillis is giving Luongo a 12 year contract. Why do I think it's a bad contract? In the history of the NHL, only ONE goalie has gotten a longer term deal than Luongo and that would be the great Rick Dipietro. So it's either Gillis is a genius or the other 28 GMs are idiots. Guess which one I'm gonna pick? Arguably the greatest goalie who ever lived, Martin Brodeur just finished off a 6 year deal. If Lou Lamerello can convince Brodeur to a 6 year deal, why can't Gillis convince Luongo to take a shorter term? Another example, Jonathan Quick, coming off a Stanley Cup victory agrees to a 10 year deal and he's only 26, 5 years younger than when Luongo signed his 12 year deal. Why can Lombardi convince him to take a shorter term deal and Gillis can't? Now I know what you're all gonna say, Gillis did it to lower the cap hit. True. But it's more of a cover up to save cap room for all the other boneheaded moves he's made like getting Keith Ballard. So tell me, how can every other GM except NYI sign their goalies to under a 7 or 8 year deal and still manage to ice a competitive team? But not us? Instead of negotiating with Luongo like a good GM is suppose to do, Gillis took the easy way out and offered him a 12 year deal. Why? He didn't deserve it, Canucks just came off a series lost to Chicago in which he was pretty bad. If Lou demanded that contract, then I say trade him or let him walk. Afterall, you work for me, not the other way around. Every GM is hired to be fired, Gillis knows he would've been long fired by the time Luongo's deal was to expire. So he doesen't care what happens in 12 years. Like I said on another thread, a good GM will build a winning team by spending to the max, it takes a GREAT GM to build a winning team and still have cap space left over. Gillis is not a great GM. Flame away CDC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEAN HARNETT Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 The luongo deal was a great signing because it gave the Canucks elite goal tending for a long time. The thing is now Shneids has emerged and we all know what has transpired. I still think the deal is a good one and Luongo has 4-5 years of solid play infront of him. Now, as far as Gills being a great GM, only time will tell. I'm at a point where I'm on the fence as far as whether or not I like him. At first I thought he was genius but not so much lately. Moneyball tactics seem to be a good thing with a lower salary cap, but you can't expect players to keep taking less when they see others hitting homeruns in free agency. The Ehrhoff pick-up was great, not re-signing him wasn't. I'm not sure if Buffalo got to Hoff before free agency started or not, but I was not happy with not having him back. The way he handled the whole Cody Hodgson situation was classless and he should've just kept his mouth shut in the end, it made the situation even harder to swallow. Grabner and a First for Ballard? Is this Gillis's fault or is it his fault only for listening to his scouting staff's opinion of Ballard? Another question is does Gillis know what a compentent scouting staff is and if he know's if he has one or not? I've thought about that from time to time! What it comes down to for me right now is not the return the Canucks get for Luongo, but how it's all handled in the end. Im sure the Canucks will do well in the trade, but I really really hope it's done before the season starts. I don't want to see a circus like the Pavel Bure situation again and hope Gillis isn't holding out for a total fleecing of Florida or nothing deal. As you all can see I have my doubt's but am hoping he know's what he's really doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 You do realize that every other gm gets evaluated on hindsight, right? You do realize that nobody acknowledges your waiver eligible argument because it's foolish, right? It's total nonsense, I do understand in your head it's very real, but on this site it might be most desperate, grasping at straws, emotional argument here. Sure you can grab another guy or two who are just as upset as you are on how the trade worked out to jump on board but anybody remotely object recognizes how foolish you are being. You were just wrong, that's it. Man up, admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredatwork Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Such a devasting counter-argument. I will respond with more "nonsense". Yup. Trades are also given a bit more time to be fully evaluated. This being said, with your past record of discussing history, should Ballard turn out to be a great d-man you will still only refer to the first two years of this deal when things weren't so good. At the time, the deal was evaluated as being not that bad. Vancouver gave up a low 1st, which was something, but they also got rid of a couple of less than useful assets, which saved the team having to give up an additional pick or a more useful prospect. Some suggest that Gillis should have waited a week and made sure that Hamhuis would sign, and that somehow this would solve all of Vancouver's defense woes. The team had only Alberts, Bieksa, Edler, Erhroff, Rome, and Salo under contract. Mitchell was likely not going to be re-signed (and he wasn't), Bieksa looked like he was going to be traded (but he wasn't), Salo was injured and might not come back. Hamhuis was likely going to sign here, but sometimes things happen and what is a sure bet, isn't. Even with Hamhuis the team needed another d-man. Gillis got one. A pretty good one, and for a not so bad price. You can argue that the Canucks shouldn't have traded for Ballard (rather than another d-man), but you can never seem to get to that point. Since the trade, it does look like Vancouver hasn't done that well from it as was hoped, mostly due to injury and adjustment issues with Ballard. Grabner's first season with the Islanders made the deal look a lot worse. Ballard has been showing signs of improvement, and I look forward to him being very solid this upcoming year. Grabner had a marked drop-off from his first year. It will be interesting to see if he picks his game up, stays where he his, or continues to decline. Yeah, that waiver eligible argument is foolish. I'm sure the Panthers feel the same way. So, Gillis should have just tried to send Grabner to the minors, as Florida attempted, and then the Islanders could have picked him up a bit earlier (ie. for nothing)? Or do you suggest that the team should have rewarded Grabner regardless of how he did at camp (like he did in Florida) by keeping him and sitting him in the press box? How many games would he have gotten had that been the case? The same number as Tambellini? Yeah, as has been asked before, and you have not addressed, how many games did you believe Tambellini would get that year? The need for the trade was not wrong. You don't seem to be able to accept this. At that time, Grabner was not a valuable asset to this team, even if we take into account his one year at 34 goals. You don't seem to be able to accept this. Your summation suggests this image to me: regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 This is actually not far off, I don't read many of the excuses you come up with. Your world must be awesome, you never have to pay any bets you lose, just blame it on hindsight, write 8 paragraphs using "at the time" a lot, finish it with a regards, G. Done. If the guy doesn't agree, make it 16 paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 This is actually not far off, I don't read many of the excuses you come up with. Your world must be awesome, you never have to pay any bets you lose, just blame it on hindsight, write 8 paragraphs using "at the time" a lot, finish it with a regards, G. Done. If the guy doesn't agree, make it 16 paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 And everyone tells me to stop using regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.